So when some individual pops up and says "um, hey, so I ran the numbers, and that's bollocks"... ...On an instinctive level, it might be like "NO we've already decided WHO ARE YOU to say otherwise?!" in spite of it not even technically them, but reality itself, saying otherwise. - ThreadSky

danshive.bsky.social • 200 days ago

So when some individual pops up and says "um, hey, so I ran the numbers, and that's bollocks"...

...On an instinctive level, it might be like "NO we've already decided WHO ARE YOU to say otherwise?!" in spite of it not even technically them, but reality itself, saying otherwise.

Comments

stickfight2.bsky.social•200 days ago

Fairly similar to this idea (but more focused on famous things), you might enjoy taking a look at https://theoatmeal.com/comics/believe (it is the oatmeal, so prepare for a bit of obscene)

tahvohck.kaeva.xyz•200 days ago

I can't remember the name for the phenomenon, but yeah, that's a pretty well documented thing. People will often dig in harder in the face of facts that disagree with them.

apophisthesnake.bsky.social•200 days ago

Doesn't that fundamentally go against the 'correct behaviour if needed' though?

I guess it's possible for people to agree to behave a certain way based on objective principles, and for rhere to be no definite detriment to doing so, but being proven objectively wrong seems like the type of situation

apophisthesnake.bsky.social•200 days ago

where a behaviour adjustment would be appropriate.

tahvohck.kaeva.xyz•200 days ago

I think in Dan's hypothetical, it was the group making the correction, while the individual response is to stick to what the group says. So it's hard to change an individual, but if the group changes, they'll follow.

apophisthesnake.bsky.social•200 days ago

Fair enough, changing the group requires changing the opinions of enough people in the group for the new normal to take over though.

danshive.bsky.social•200 days ago

One might read "correct behavior if needed" as people considering the facts under calm circumstances and sensibly course-correcting....

...But I was referring to "whoops, lots of people are dead now, and we're scared enough to rethink things" sort of situations 😱

tahvohck.kaeva.xyz•200 days ago

Yeah that'd do it too oof ☠️

apophisthesnake.bsky.social•200 days ago

Not necessarily unfortunately, the Crusades resulting in lots of Crusaders dying every Crusade without taking Jerusalem didn't stop the Church from sending the next Crusade.

danshive.bsky.social•200 days ago

I've read speculation about it being an instinct to commit to decisions once made so we move past the choosing point, yeah.

Like, at some point, you have to dig in your heels and settle on something, which can be good or bad situationally, and might be made worse in modern society.

apophisthesnake.bsky.social•200 days ago

Fallacy of sunk costs is what it's called, I think.

Evolutionarily, it makes sense to stick to an area or tactic which has proven reliably safe in the past, even if new information emerges suggesting a different area or tactic would have been a better initial choice.

kristinas-art.bsky.social•200 days ago

I recall seeing it pointed out that emotions basically function to make us pick and stick to a choice, because if we keep second-guessing or deliberating, we would just be stuck in an endless loop.

Which I guess is kinda how anxiety works, and on the other end overconfidence or denial.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply